What Australia’s elections tell us about the Alternative Vote

The “decisive” voting system led to a hung parliament — does this tell us anything we didn’t already

This weekend's Australian polls resulted in a hung parliament as the two main parties each failed to win an outright majority. The horse-trading has begun.

So far, so similar to May 2010. But there is an important difference -- Australia's House of Representatives is voted in by the Alternative Vote (AV) system, which will be offered to the British public in a referendum next year.

The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has released some thoughts on what this election showed us about AV.

It argues that "AV has delivered decisive results in each and every Australian seat". While two-thirds of British MPs hold a weak mandate in their constituency (with less than 50 per cent of voters in the area supporting them), Australian candidates must gain at least 50 per cent of the vote.

Highlighting the "decisiveness" of the system might seem odd, given that Australia is without a government at present, as coalition negotiations get under way. However, this is the country's first hung parliament in 70 years.

The ERS does a simple comparison over time. Australians hold more elections than the UK, due to shorter-term lengths. This means that, since 1940 -- the date of their last hung parliament -- they have had 27 federal elections. Of the past 28 British general elections, three have delivered a hung parliament (in 1929, February 1974 and 2010).

What this basic comparison boils down to is that there's no greater risk of hung parliaments under the AV system. The relative unusualness of the outcome in both countries indicates the role of global economic and political uncertainty.

However, there are some important differences between Australia's political situation and ours which make a like-for-like comparison reductive. Australia has a de facto two-party system between Labor and the coalition of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the County Liberal Party.

Comparing the frequency of hung parliaments in the past overlooks the role of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, who would be likely to benefit hugely from second-preference votes under AV. If we were to end up creating a three-party system, that could indeed make hung parliaments more likely.

All in all, this doesn't tell us a huge amount that we didn't already know. AV is not perfect; nor is it proportional. It can throw up the same quirks as first-past-the-post. But, in ensuring that each candidate at least has a strong mandate, it is an improvement on the status quo.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

From war and slavery to prison – life inside an immigration detention centre

David spent five years locked in a house in Britain. Then he spent two years in immigration detention centres. 

Visitors at the immigration detention centre are met by Sid the Sloth, balancing an acorn just as he does in the family film Ice Age. The picture is one of the brightly coloured murals adorning the otherwise bare walls of the visitor's entrance. The lurid paintwork sits in stark juxtaposition to the barbed wire outside, and the metal detector and eight sets of doors which visitors must pass through.

It is a thin veneer which fails to mask a system containing institutionalised abuse from top to bottom. It isn't surprising, then, that one of the conditions of my visit was not to identify the centre - the volunteers I joined fear having visiting rights withdrawn by the company in charge.

Once inside I met Sivan, a 32-year-old Kurdish asylum seeker who came to Britain clinging to the underside of a lorry. He had been tortured by the Turkish authorities. For Sivan the children’s cartoons in the visitor’s entrance held a particularly cruel irony. Detainees at the centre are not allowed smartphones, and with no access to email Sivan’s wife, also a Kurdish asylum seeker, is unable to send her husband pictures of their first child. The couple have not seen each other in the two months since Sivan was detained. That day, in the visitor’s lounge, Sivan saw his son for the first time. Holding photographs of the little boy in his hands, Sivan’s face momentarily lit up as it split with joy and then sorrow.

Sivan does not know when he will be able to see his young family - or if they will ever be able to be together.

Across Britain more than 3,000 people, many fleeing war and torture, are locked up indefinitely in immigration centres. They arrive in Britain seeking refuge. But are shut away in privately-run prisons before being forcibly removed. Often with little or no English, detainees rely on volunteers to help them navigate Britain’s complex immigration system.

At the volunteer hub, which helps 80 of the 500 men in the centre each week, I met former detainees who all had one thing in common: the mental torture that indefinite detention inflicts. Like David, a quiet Ghanaian who has never really been free. He was kept as a slave on a plantation until traffickers brought him to Britain aged 13. Here he spent five years locked in a house, when not being forced to work 14-hour days in a warehouse. He finally escaped only to spend 11 years waiting for his asylum application to be processed - still ongoing despite clear medical evidence of his torture during imprisonment. He has spent two years in immigration detention centres. And as he waits he now has to register his presence with the authorities every Tuesday. He is terrified that when he does he won’t return to his four-year-old daughter, but instead be returned to captivity by the Home Office, without explanation.

Another former detainee Daniel, a tailor from Iran who fled five years ago, spent five months in detention when he first arrived in Britain. He describes being locked up with no time limit as "one of the worst times of my life", and still needs anti-depressants. “It really damaged my mind,” Daniel told me. “You don’t know when the process will be finished and you’re just waiting, waiting. You don’t know what’s going on.”

I heard from detainees who have had medical appointments they have waited months for cancelled because the centre wouldn’t pay for transport. Some kept three in a room with a toilet between the beds. Others woken in the middle of the night to see their friend dragged from their bed and assaulted by guards before being taken for deportation. Detainees employed to clean the centre for an exploitative £3 a day, just to afford necessities like toiletries. Or they stay trapped by fear in their rooms because they are afraid of the ex-prisoners, many who have committed serious crimes, locked up around them. I heard too of solitary confinement used routinely as a punishment for those considered not to be compliant. More than one detainee said immigration centres are worse than prisons. And they are right.

Britain is the only place in Europe which still locks people up with no time limit. Despite the government’s promise to reduce both the numbers - and the time spent there - progress is still far too slow. Last year 27,819 people entered detention. Some have been there more than five years.

Barely a week passes without a new report of violence or suicide or rape or abuse, inflicted on those who came to our country for help. The government should hang its head in shame. The Home Office must stop turning a blind eye to what it must know what is happening to those in its care. It’s clear that this is a broken and barbaric system. After seeing it for myself, I’m more convinced than ever that the use of indefinite detention has to end.

Names have been changed to protect the identities of those interviewed for this article.

Jon Bartley is the co-leader of the Green Party.